Bugatti: Aero Beauty and Innovation

[Christ]

The trolls have been fed.

[orange4boy]

The "Tank" type 32 was built just one year after Jaray applied for his patent on vehicle aerodynamics (which was granted in 1927). The "Tank" was panned at the time by the French press for it's looks. I'm trying to find out if it had a flat belly pan. Apparently it was "interesting" to drive...

“You can well imagine that with no firewall there is intimate communication between driver and machinery. The clutch whirrs dangerously close to one’s left leg, the pipes get hot, oil splatters all over you, and there is a lot of exhaust, hot water, steam, noise and danger. The exhaust glows, gas dribbles steadily on your feet, and backfires light up the universe. All very exciting.”

[IMG][/IMG]

I just found a new book on the type 32 written by Diego Ratti. From the preview:



[IMG][/IMG]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man: ...looks like it was a "tail-dragger" landing gear configuration, with the "tail-wheel" being located *IN* the lower dorsal stabilzer.

AHA!
From:the Bugatti revue: Bugatti Aircraft

[orange4boy]

Found a couple of shots of the interior showing how the driver literally sat in the engine compartment. The co-pilot was saddled with the exhaust pipes, poor bugger.



I believe this is a faithful replica. I'm trying to find out if it had a full belly pan. I can see glimpses of it in this photo:



And a bonus video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5m9VpPouIY

The Bugatti type 32 was built for the 1923 French Grand Prix. Incidentally, in the same year, Tatra, famous in aero circles for their aerodynamic cars of later years came out with this car:



The first Jaray licensed streamliners wouldn't show up until twelve years later in 1934 starting with the T77

[orange4boy]

Originally Posted by aerohead

she's a beauty,but I suspect separation at the headlight bezels,everything behind the windshield would be in separated flow,and too much air would be going underneath.And I bet that's a nasty undercarriage.

Oh, I agree. I realize that a lot of these cars were aerodynamic styling exercises that's why I titled the thread "Aero Beauty and innovation" and not Aero, Beauty and Innovation"

I also did not make any claims as to these car's Cds, low, high or otherwise. The first sentence in the thread was meant to convey that I was discovering the aerodynamic aspects and technical innovations of Bugatti cars.

I didn't even attempt to make guesses as to their Cds as these would prove to be totally unreliable.

I'm still looking for Cd and frontal area numbers but haven't found any.

[Frank Lee]

"...I titled the thread "Aero Beauty and innovation" and not Aero, Beauty and Innovation"


"I have bee looking at 20's and 30's Bugatti cars recently and realizing how aerodynamic they were."

Sorry, comma or no comma, that looks like a claim that these cars are/were aero.

And when I tried to apply some logic to that claim, the response was to throw gas on the fire.

And there we are.

If your intention was to say "Bugatti's were styled to look sleek" or "Art Deco" then that's what you would have said, right?

[orange4boy]

Sorry, comma or no comma, that looks like a claim that these cars are/were aero.

Apology accepted.

[Frank Lee]

If English is your second language, I understand.

[NeilBlanchard]

Photos: Bugatti 100 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

[orange4boy]

Good find. What a gorgeous machine. Apparently, the slots on the leading edge of the tail surfaces are the engine cooling intakes.

I also read that the dual prop shafts pass under the armpits of the pilot. Talk about an intimate connection with your machine.

The lack of a bump type canopy would have made it very slippery. Too bad it never flew. If I had the wads of cash required, I'd have one built. Perhaps not with balsa wood, though.

I found a shot that shows a bit of the belly pan on the T-32 The salient question on this car is whether the air would reattach behind the cockpit.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

Oh, I agree. I realize that a lot of these cars were aerodynamic styling exercises that's why I titled the thread "Aero Beauty and innovation" and not Aero, Beauty and Innovation"

I also did not make any claims as to these car's Cds, low, high or otherwise. The first sentence in the thread was meant to convey that I was discovering the aerodynamic aspects and technical innovations of Bugatti cars.

I didn't even attempt to make guesses as to their Cds as these would prove to be totally unreliable.

I'm still looking for Cd and frontal area numbers but haven't found any.

I've never run across any quanta for these cars,although GOOGLE never ceases to amaze,so perhaps at some point we may get some hard numbers.
Hucho did make a comment with respect to the 'tank' in his 2nd edition,and wrote that he believed the car would probably suffer separation in the area where the windscreen would typically be and never recover.
I've been spending time with Jaray's development model and I am convinced that even in separated flow,the aft-body still performs a beneficial function.
Without a technical term to draw on,I'm refering to it as 'stuffing the wake.'
And it's a concept aerodynamacists stumbled onto when testing convertibles with the top down.
By placing manikins in the open car they were able to measure lower drag do to this 'stuffing,' and I think that the aft-body of the Bugatti 'tank' is helping to perform this function.
All,except the last of Jaray's models( the full-tail) suffer separated flow very early on the body but do not suffer the drag as would occur at the same point for a Kamm chop,so the tail must serve drag reduction even though it's less than ideal.I believe it's true of all pseudo-fast-back cars.
I'm going to look at R.G.S.White's 'Method of Estimating Drag Coefficients' at some point,'n see if it might offer some insight into the early cars.
The main working page from it is in the Phil Knox Aerodynamic Photos Album somewhere.